Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

דלמא אזלא איהי לגבייהו — Perhaps she will go to them

OVERVIEW The גמרא differentiates that when the (unidentified) בועל goes to the woman the rule of רוב applies¹ since he is פריש; however if the woman goes to the (unidentified) בועל then the rule of כל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה applies. תוספות will first clarify what is the meaning of going to him or going to her. Then תוספות will discuss whether the rule of כל דפריש applies to people.

פירוש לתוך ביתם דאפילו בתוך העיר לא חשיב קבוע – The explanation of the term אזלא איהי לגבייהו is that she is going into their houses; but not merely into the city; for even is she goes to them, but only into the city, it will not be considered that the איסור is קבוע – established –

תוספות proves that לתוך העיר is not considered קבוע: דדמי לנמצא בין החנויות דלא חשיב קבוע – For it is similar to the case where the meat was found between the butcher stores, where it is also not considered קבוע. It is only considered קבוע if the person bought the meat in the store. Similarly here in order to consider it קבוע, she must enter his house.

תוספות offers an additional proof that לתוך העיר is not considered קבוע: וכן גבי תינוק מושלך בעיר² לא חשיב קבוע הואיל ולא נמצא בבית – And similarly concerning the case of a child who was cast away in the city, it is not considered קבוע since he was not found in the house –

ולכך פירש בקונטרס³ שפירש בועל מביתו – And therefore רש״י explained that the phrase ‘if they went to her’ means that the בועל left his house. That is considered מרובא פריש (and not קבוע). It is not necessary for him to go to her (outside the city). If he leaves his house, it is considered פירש, even if she meets him in the city.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר דבנזיר פרק ב׳ (דף יב,א ושם) פריך – And if you will say that in the second פרק of נזיר,ריש לקיש challenges –

אהא דאמר האומר צא וקדש לי אשה סתם אסור בכל הנשים שבעולם – That which רבי יוחנן said ‘whoever says to a שליח, go and be מקדש for me an (unspecified) woman**(the משלח did not specify which woman the שליח should be מקדש), the rule is that the משלח** is forbidden to marry any woman in the world’. We assume that שליח was מקדש a woman. Any (other) woman whom the משלח wishes to marry now, may be a relative to the woman whom the שליח was מקדש; she may be her mother, daughter, sister, etc.⁴ ר״ל challenges this ruling –

מקן סתומה⁵ – from the משנה of ‘an unspecified ‘nest’’. When the doves fly away from the קנים, we should be concerned that someone else⁶ may use these birds for their own קן. This is not permitted; for these doves were already specified for another individual, and one cannot fulfill his obligation with a קרבן that was already designated for a different obligation. Just as by the woman we are concerned that the woman he wishes to marry may be related to the woman whom his שליח was מקדש, here too let us be concerned that the dove he wishes to use was the one that flew away from its original קן.⁷

The גמרא there answers: ומסיק אמינא לך אשה דלא ניידא ואת אמרת לי איסורא דנייד – And the גמרא there concludes, ‘I am speaking to you about a woman who is not roaming, and you wish to contradict me from an איסור of a קן which is roaming’. (תוספות understood the גמרא to mean) The woman whom the man wishes to be מקדש is in her place, she is considered a קבוע; however the bird was פריש and left its place of קביעות. In the case of פריש we follow the רוב, but not in the case of קבוע. Therefore he is אסור to marry any woman for כל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה דמי, but anyone may use any dove that he finds since כל דפריש מרובא פריש.

The גמרא there continues: וכי תימא הכא נמי בשוקא אשכחיה וקדיש – And if you will say, that by קידושין also, the משלח should be permitted to marry her in a situation where he found her in the marketplace and was מקדש her. In this situation, seemingly, she is no longer a קבוע but rather a פריש; for she left her place of קביעות and was מקודשת in the שוק. Nevertheless, even in this instance he may not marry her, for –

התם הדרא לניחותא – There**, in the case of the woman** she returns to her resting place. When she returns home she is deemed to be a קבוע. The birds however never return to their (original) place, therefore they are considered פריש. This concludes the גמרא in נזיר.

תוספות surmises: משמע לגבי אדם לא שייך כל דפריש מרובא פריש משום דהדר לניחותיה – It seems from that גמרא, that concerning a person the rule of כל דפריש מרובא פריש does not apply, since he returns to his ‘resting place’, as that גמרא clearly stated concerning the woman. She is not considered פריש even though he was מקדש her בשוק, since (eventually) she is הדרא לניחותא. However, here in our גמרא it states that if the (suspected) man leaves his house, he is considered a פריש, even though that later he will be הדר לניחותיה.⁸ What is the difference between our case where the man is considered a פריש, and the גמרא in נזיר where the woman is considered a קבוע, since הדרא לניחותא?!

תוספות answers: **** ולאו פירכא היא דהתם בשעת האיסור כשזה בא על שום אשה – And there is no contradiction between the two גמרות, for there at the time of the suspected transgression, which means when this משלח has relations with any woman; and we are concerned that perhaps this woman is related to the woman the שליח was מקדש, then at that very same time it is possible that –

הדרא לניחותא האשה שקידש השליח – The woman whom the שליח was מקדש returned to her resting place, and she retains her קביעות status. The woman, that was מקודשת ע״י השליח, is the source of the איסור.⁹ were מקודש. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. Whenever she is קבוע we consider the איסור כמחצה על מחצה like every קבוע. The term הדרא לניחותא is not concerning the woman whom the משלח wishes to marry, but rather the woman who was מקודשת through the שליח. She may be קבוע at the time of the איסור. אבל הכא כי אזלי אינהו לגבה בשעה שאסרה הרי הוא נייד: However here, in our גמרא, when the unidentified people go to her he is נייד at the time of the איסור. There is no קבוע at all. We assume that he was פריש from the (תרי) רובי כשרים. The defining factor is if there is a קביעות at the time of the (suspected) איסור (regardless whether later the פריש will return to his קבוע status).

SUMMARY The בועל is considered קבוע only if the איסור took place in his house. The concept of הדרא לניחותא is limited to the source of the איסור at the time of the איסור. Otherwise it is considered פריש, even if after the מעשה איסור it is הדרא לניחותא.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות explains that since the אשה המקודשת ע״י השליח is הדרא לניחותא, she is considered קבוע and therefore the משלח is אסור בכל הנשים.¹⁰ Seemingly it is not understood. In the case of תשע חנויות the source of the איסור are the חנויות. They are קבוע. However if something was found outside the חנויות, it is מותר regardless that the חנויות are קבוע, since the meat was פירש. The same should apply here. Granted the אשה המקודשת is קבוע, however the other woman was פריש; she was מקודשת בשוק. That קדושין should be valid, since she was פריש. What is the difference between תשע חנויות and the women?!¹¹
2. Is there any connection between the opening remarks of תוספות, and the ensuing question and answer?
3. What would be the ruling if the תינוק is found in a house;¹² is it considered קבוע and he is a ישראל לחומרא or not?¹³

footnotes: ¹ Most of the people from where the בועל comes are כשר. Some however are פוסל the woman מכהונה. The place of origin of the בועל is where the איסור is קבוע. If the בועל leave his place of origin, he is considered מרובא פריש and will not disqualify the woman. If the woman goes to the place of origin then the איסור is במקום הקביעות and the woman will be אסורה לכהונה. ² See further טו,ב. The question there is concerning the status of this castaway child; is he treated as a ישראל or as an עכו״ם. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ³ בד״ה ופרכינן. ⁴ If, however, it can be ascertained that from the time the שליח left the משלח, this woman had no unmarried relatives, then the משלח may marry her. ⁵ There are certain individuals (זב, זבה, יולדת, ומצורע) who are obligated to bring two doves (one עולה and one חטאת) for their purification process. These two birds together are called a קן. There are two types of קנים: a קן מפורשת, where the owner designated which bird is the חטאת and which is the עולה; and a קן סתומה, where the owner did not as yet designate the birds. The כהן will designate them when he performs the עבודה. The עולת העוף and חטאת העוף have different עבודות and cannot be intermingled. If one of the birds of a קן סתומה flies away the owner can take another dove and join it with the remaining dove for his קן. However if it was a קן מפורשת, then he must take two new doves for his קן. He cannot use the remaining dove. ⁶ The concern may be that he himself may find the ‘lost’ bird and use it for a קן of a different obligation, which is also prohibited. ⁷ The thrust of the question is that according to ר״י it will be virtually impossible to bring a קן. There is always the concern that it flew away from another previously designated קן. ⁸ It would seem from the beginning of תוספות that the question is (also) on the case of אזלא איהי לגבייהו that if she did not go into the house it is not considered קבוע even though he is הדר לניחותיה. However the question is (also) certainly on what the גמרא states that if אזלי אינהו לגבה it is considered פריש. See מהר״ם שי״ף. ⁹ Let us assume that the משלח wants to marry לאה who has a sister רחל. We are unsure whether the שליח was מקדש רחל. The source of the (possible) איסור is רחל, for לאה on her own would be permitted to the משלח. Ordinarily we would assume that רחל was not מקודש by the שליח, since all the women of the world were not מקודש by the שליח (save one). However since there is a possibility that the שליח was מקדש רחל, and רחל is now at her מקום הקביעות, then the rule of קבוע says that the probability that רחל was מקודש, equals the probability that any of the other women of the world combined ¹⁰ See footnote # 9. ¹¹ See סוכ״ד אות ט (ואילך). ¹² See footnote # 2. ¹³ See אילת השחר.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

פרט לזורק אבן לגו — It excludes, one who throws a stone in their midst.

OVERVIEW The רבנן derive the rule of כל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה דמי from the פסוק וארב לו וקם עליו (as the גמרא here explains). However, רבי שמעון derives from this פסוק that if נתכוין להרוג את זה והרג את זה that he is פטור ממיתה. The question arises, from where does ר״ש derive the rule of קבוע.¹

תוספות asks: תימה דלרבי שמעון קבוע מנא ליה – It is astounding! According to ר״ש, how does he derive the rule of כל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה דמי. The rule of קבוע is derived from the פסוק of וארב לו. However, ר״ש interprets the פסוק of וארב לו וגו׳ to exclude a murderer, who killed an unintended victim, from מיתה. From which פסוק does ר״ש derive the rule of קבוע.

תוספות anticipates a possible solution, and rejects it: ואין לומר דמסקינן בפרק הנשרפין (סנהדרין דף עט,א ושם) דרבי שמעון סבר כרבי² – And one cannot answer that in פרק נשרפין the גמרא concludes that ר״ש agrees with רבי –

דיליף נתינה נתינה ואייתר ליה וארב לו לקבוע– Who derives from the גזירה שוה of נתינה נתינהthat נתכוין להרג זה והרג את זה is only מחוייב ממון and not מיתה,³ and therefore the פסוק of וארב לו remains available, to teach us the rule of קבוע. This would seemingly answer the question. ר״ש derives קבוע from וארב לו as the רבנן do; and he derives the דין of נתכוין וכו׳ from the גז״ש נתינה נתינה.

תוספות rejects this answer: דאכתי לתנא דבי חזקיה מנא ליה קבוע דלית ליה דרבי דהא באין מתכוין פטור מממון: For the question will still remain; according to the ברייתא of דבי חזקיה,⁴ how will they know that קבוע is כמחצה על מחצה, since the דבי חזקיה disagree with רבי, for they maintain that if someone killed another unintentionally (intending to kill another instead) he is exempt from paying monetary compensation.⁵ Therefore, we cannot interpret ונתת נפש תחת נפש to mean ממון (as רבי does); for there is no חיוב ממון (according to דבי חזקיה) if there was an אסון. The גז״ש נתינה נתינה cannot teach us that נתכוין להרוג את זה והרג את זה is פטור ממיתה וחייב ממון. According to דבי חזקיה, we derive that נתכוין להרוג זה והרג את זה פטור, only from וארב לו וגו׳. The question remains; if they derive from וארב לו the דין of נתכוין להרוג וכו׳, from where do they derive the דין of קבוע?! תוספות does not answer this question.⁶

SUMMARY ר״ש cannot derive קבוע from וארב לו (he needs it for נתכוין להרוג וכו׳). He cannot derive from נתינה נתינה according to the תנא דבי חזקיה. From where does ר״ש derive the rule of קבוע?!

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות initially attempted to answer that ר״ש derives the rule pf נתכוין להרוג זה והרג את זה פטור, from נתינה נתינה (like רבי).⁷ However the גמרא here states that he derives it from וארב לו וגו׳, how can תוספות assume that he derives it from נתינה נתינה?!⁸
2. Explain: a) how * WE* know that דבי חזקיה maintain that נתכוין להרוג זה והרג את זה is פטור; and b) how does דבי חזקיה know that נתכוין לזוא״ז is פטור!

footnotes: ¹ The רבנן disagree with ר״ש and maintain that נתכוין להרוג את זה והרג את זה חייב. ² See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ³ The תורה states: (משפטים כא, כב וכ״ג) וכי ינצו אנשים ונגפו אשה הרה וגו׳ ולא יהיה אסון וגו׳ ונתן בפלילים. ואם אסון יהיה ונתת נפש תחת נפש. The פסוק is discussing a case where the person intended to kill another, and instead harmed a pregnant woman causing an abortion. If the woman was not killed, the aggressor must pay the damages of the fetus (ונתן בפלילים). If the woman was killed, however, then the rule is ונתת נפש תחת נפש. According to רבי however, there is a גזירה שוה נתינה (ונתת נפש) נתינה (ונתן בפלילים), which teaches us that even if the woman was killed; the הורג is only obligated to pay money (but not to be killed). This גז״ש in effect teaches us that נתכוין להרג את זה (the other person) והרג את זה (the אשה הרה), he is פטור ממיתה; the same ruling that ר״ש derived from the פסוק of וארב לו. ⁴ It is written in the תורה (ויקרא [אמור] כד,כא) ומכה בהמה ישלמנה ומכה אדם יומת. The תורה compares killing an animal to slaying a person. דבי חזקיה derive from this היקש that just as the laws concerning מכה בהמה are universal; there is no difference between מתכוין and אינו מתכוין, etc. (he is always obligated to pay), so too by מכה אדם there is no difference between מתכוין and אינו מתכוין (concerning payments). We know that if a person kills במתכוין he is פטור from any monetary damages on account of קם ליה בדרבה מיניה. Similarly (even) if he killed באינו מתכוין (when he is not put to death), he is also פטור מתשלומין. ⁵ The היקש of מכה בהמה וגו׳ is necessary to teach us (according to דבי חזקיה) that there is never a חיוב תשלומין if מיתה is involved even by נתכוין להרוג את זה וכו׳. From this we also derive that דבי חזקיה maintain that נתכוין להרוג וכו׳ is פטור ממיתה; for if it would be מחויב מיתה, then the היקש of מכה בהמה is unnecessary to exempt him from תשלומין. It is a ‘regular’ קם ליה בדרבה מיניה. It is therefore apparent that the דבי חזקיה agree with ר״ש that נתכוין להרוג את זה והרג את זה is פטור ממיתה. ⁶ See תוה״ר. ⁷ See footnote # 2. ⁸ See תוה״ר.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

וספק נפשות להקל — And a doubt in capital offences is judged leniently.

OVERVIEW Our גמרא states that if a person intended to kill someone out of a group of ten people; then even if there were five ישראלים and five כנענים in the group he would be פטור ממיתה. Since there is a ספק whether he would kill a ישראל or not (when he throws the stone in their midst), the rule is that we are lenient by a ספק נפשות. There is a dispute between רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש concerning התראת ספק.¹ If witnesses warn someone not to do a specific act; however there is a possibility that even if he does that act, he will not have transgressed an איסור (to the extent that he should be punished); this warning is called התראת ספק.² If the person disregarded the warning, preformed the act and transgressed the איסור, then according to ר״י who maintains שמיה התראה he will be punished accordingly, while ר״ל maintains that he will be exempt from punishment, since at the time of warning there was a ספק if he will be liable for this act. תוספות will discuss which of these two opinions our גמרא is following. ---------------–

תוספות asks: ותימה למאן דאמר התראת ספק לא שמה התראה – And it is astounding! If we follow the view of the one who maintains that a doubtful warning is not considered a valid warning**, then** –

אפילו ספק נפשות להחמיר פטור משום דהתראת ספק הוא – Even if we would maintain that a doubt concerning capital offences are dealt with stringency, nevertheless he would be exempt from receiving capital punishment, since it is a doubtful warning.³ Doubtful warnings are not sufficient to enact any penalty. ואי למאן דאמר שמה התראה היכי פטרינן ליה כשנמצא שישראל הרג – And if we are following the view of the one who maintains that a התראת ספק is a valid התראה, then how can we exempt the murderer from the death penalty, when it turns out that he murdered a Jew?!

תוספות will clarify this last point by citing two examples. If we maintain התראת ספק שמה התראה then he should be חייב –

הא מיחייב בהכה את זה וחזר והכה את זה⁴ – for he is sentenced to death when he hit this one and he continued and hit the other one. If he hit both ‘possible fathers’ (and drew blood) [even if it was⁵] one after the other, he is מחויב מיתה, if we maintain that התראת ספק שמיה התראה.⁶ תוספות offers another similar case: ובנותר כשאמרו לו אל תותיר⁷ אף על גב דספק הוא – And similarly concerning נותר if the witnesses warned him ‘do not leave over’ the food of the קרבן past the deadline; even though that when they warned him it was doubtful whether he would leave it over or not,⁸ nevertheless it is considered a valid התראה according to the מ״ד that התראת ספק שמיה התראה. We can derive from these two גמרות that if we maintain that התראת ספק שמיה התראה, the person who received this התראה is punished; regardless that it is a ספק. Similarly here too if a ישראל was eventually killed, the original התראה should be considered a valid התראה to hold the murderer liable.

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דשאני התם שיודע בודאי שיבא לידי איסור אם יותיר או יכה שניהם – And one can say; that the two cited cases (מכה אביו and נותר) are different than our case. For there the transgressor knows with certainty that he will commit a transgression if he will leave over the קרבן; or if he will hit both ‘fathers’ –

משום הכי שמה התראה – Therefore it is considered a התראה. Even though the עדים were not sure (by each התראה) that he is committing an איסור; however the transgressor himself knows that his actions (or inaction) will lead to an איסור. אבל הכא אינו יודע שודאי יבוא לידי איסור שאינו יודע את מי יכה: However here the murderer does not know with certainty that he will commit a transgression for he does not know whom he will murder; it could be a ישראל but it could be a כנעני. Therefore in our case even if התראת ספק שמה התראה he is פטור (since ספק נפשות להקל).⁹

SUMMARY Even if we maintain that התראת ספק שמיה התראה, nevertheless in a case where the מותרה is not certain that his action will lead to an איסור, it is not a התראה.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות answers that even according to the מ״ד that התראת ספק שמה התראה; however in our case it is not שמה התראה.¹⁰ If that is the case then the original question of תוספות returns; why is it necessary to state that he is פטור on account of ספק נפשות להקל, he is פטור because such a התראה is לא שמה התראה?!¹¹
2. תוספות told us the factual difference between the two התראות. Explain why this factual difference should have a bearing whether or not it is a valid התראה.

footnotes: ¹ See מכות טו,ב. ² A classic example is the case of שילוח הקן. The עדים warned him not to take the אם על הבנים, which is prohibited. However even if he takes the אם על הבנים he is not חייב מלקות, for he can still send away the אם. He is מחוייב מלקות only when it becomes impossible to send away the אם [according to the מ״ד who maintains בטלו ולא בטלו]. Therefore this התראה not to take the אם על הבנים is a התראת ספק. (In a regular התראה, even though the עדים do not know whether the מותרה will do the transgression, nevertheless that is not a התראת ספק. We are certain that if he does what the עדים are warning him not to do, then he will certainly be עובר an איסור.) ³ It is a התראת ספק because even if he will throw the stone we do not know that he will kill a ישראל. ⁴ See יבמות קא,א מכות טז,א. The גמרא there is discussing the case of a woman who remarried within three months of her divorce. The subsequent child (who was born within seven months of the remarriage) is not certain if his father is the first husband (בן תשעה לראשון) or the second husband (בן שבעה לאחרון). This son was warned not to cause a wound to either of his ‘possible fathers’. He did not heed this warning and wounded each one of them after the appropriate warning was given. Wounding one’s father is a capital crime. ⁵ If he hit (and was warned about) both ‘fathers’ simultaneously, then even according to the מ״ד התראת ספק לא שמה התראה, he will be חייב. There is no ספק in his act of הכאה. ⁶ Each time that he was warned not to hit his father; it was a התראת ספק, for we are not sure that this indeed is his father. However since he hit them both and was warned for each one, he ultimately transgressed a capital crime after a warning was given. One of them was certainly his father. If we were to maintain התראת ספק לא שמיה התראה, then he would not be liable; for there never was a proper התראה, merely a ספק התראה. ⁷ All (edible) קרבנות must be eaten by a specific time (that day and the following night, or two days and the night in between). Failing to do so is a תורה transgression. ⁸ See מכות טז,א. The עדים are required to warn him while there is still sufficient time for him to eat the remains; otherwise there is no point in the warning. The מותיר could therefore claim that since there was still time left he thought he would eat it shortly, and then he forgot the התראה, rendering the התראה ineffective. Therefore this is (also) considered a התראת ספק. ⁹ See תוספות הרא״ש who adds that since it is a ספק נפשות, therefore it is not a valid התראה. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ¹⁰ See footnote # 9. ¹¹ See אילת השחר for an extensive discussion of the matter.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

וליוחסין לא בעינן תרי רובי ורמינהו כולי — And do we not require two majorities concerning genealogy?! I will dispute that etc.!

OVERVIEW רב חייא בר אשי said in the name of רב that the הלכה is according to ר׳ יוסי of the משנה. רבי ירמיה understood that to mean that the תינוקת is מותרת לכהונה even if there is one רוב only. ר׳ ירמיה therefore challenged this ruling from another ruling of רב concerning a castaway child, that even if the רוב are ישראלים we do not consider this child a ישראל in regards to יוחסין.¹ Why is it that by the תינוקת one רוב is sufficient for יוחסין? Our תוספות argues that this contradiction could be resolved without resorting to the sגמרא׳ answer that תינוקת is כשר לכהונה only by תרי רובי. ----------------------–

תוספות asks: הוה מצי לשנויי שאני תינוק דלית ליה חזקה דכשרות: The גמרא could have answered, that the following case of a castaway child, is different than the case of תינוקת in our משנה; for the תינוק has no presumption of כשרות. We do not know the lineage of this child, therefore one רוב is insufficient. However in our משנה, the תינוקת had a חזקת כשרות before she was נבעלה באונס, therefore one רוב may be sufficient.²

SUMMARY There is the option that תרי רובי are required only when there is no חזקת כשרות.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות maintains that there is a difference between a case of חזקת כשרות and no חזקת כשרות with regard to תרי רובי. The גמרא will shortly ask on רב חנן בר רבא who maintains that the need for תרי רובי by the תינוקת of our משנה was merely a הוראת שעה. This is contradicted by the דין of תינוק המושלך were two רובי are required. However according to תוספות there is no contradiction; because in the case of תינוק המושלך there is no חזקת כשרות!³

footnotes: ¹ See רש״י טו,ב ד״ה אבל, that we are concerned that she may be an עכו״ם (or a גיורת) who are פסול לכהונה. ² See תוספות הרא״ש who answers that the פסול ליוחסין by the castaway child is even if he had relations with a בת ישראל; she nevertheless becomes פסולה לכהונה, even though she has a חזקת כשרות. ³ See, מהרש״א (הארוך) וכו׳. This question is seemingly ‘stronger’ than תוספות question, for the גמרא requires that רב חנן disagree with the ruling of רב concerning the תינוק המושלך (while according to this תוספות this does not seem necessary).